Thursday ramble

There have been studies--or at least a study--recently about how social media serve to exert peer pressure on us in terms of our views. We don't dare disagree with what our social media communities are saying.


I don't have that luxury because my social media communities are not monolithic. The people I follow on Twitter disagree amongst each other, whether about energy policies or genetically modified foods or national security. The latter category is where people tend to agree to disagree, to respect one another's perspectives, etc. Many are part of the same IRL professional communities and can see where the others are coming from. With many other categories, the respective sides dismiss each other as ignorant or evil. It's a good exercise for me in perspective.

I don't worship the scientists and take their word for everything--for example, as I've written many times on this blog, the safety of genetically modified foods may be "settled science," but focusing merely on safety eclipses bigger questions about how beneficial the technology is in addressing food insecurity, particularly at the expense of less technical matters that won't go away even if GMOs are a boon to production. But I'm not here to discuss content; I'm merely here to say that I follow the people who are so sure that GMOs are the answer and that those who disagree should be lumped together with antivaxxers and climate deniers. And I disagree with them. I won't be bullied into changing my mind--not because I'm ignoring the science, but because they're ignoring the broader context.

Not to put too fine a point on it: not only do I decline to always agree with the same ideological side, but I resent the bullying that comes with, "if you don't agree, you're stupid and dangerous." Even if there's a side that's right, the debate benefits from discussion.

A few months ago, I vehemently disagreed with Dave Brooks' column on poverty and character (and later posted someone else's more articulate disagreement). But I also disagree with the reflexive resistance on the other side to discuss the nonsituational drivers of poverty and to acknowledge that, yes, along with opportunities, skills can be an issue. That's why (some) homeless shelters and other organizations that serve the homeless provide training in life skills. These can be purely financial or broader.

Is it so bad to openly discuss the idea that some of the systemic reinforcements to poverty are learned (or things not learned)? This isn't limited to poor people: there are tips and tricks and tools out there, unbeknownst to some of us, that most of us can benefit from. That's why there are personal finance columnists. That's why there are other columnists. Things that are obvious to some, for whatever reason, need to be learned for others.

When I was at my parents' house a few weeks ago, I blogged about what the kids call "life-hacking." Specifically, I blogged about how my dad could use some of it. How being at their house stresses me out on a gut level because it brings back memories of my backwards immigrant childhood, when it seemed like everyone else did everything better, knew things I didn't. And to some extent, they did. And I had to learn it the hard way because my parents sure as hell hadn't figured it out; they were of a different world.

To be clear, there are also things my parents know or knew, and skills they have or had, that I don't. There are knowledge and skills that come with being immigrants, and there are knowledge and skills that are out of the reach of (some) immigrants. All I'm saying is, it's a different world, and there are things that are obvious to everyone else that you don't necessarily pick up.

I speak from the perspective of an immigrant, but the concept is transferable to discussions of poverty. I'm telling you that it's real, and it's not piling it on to acknowledge it. It may be going to far to suggest that that well-meaning contingent that denies it may be blinded by their privilege; it's fair for them to find it insulting to suggest that poor people need better skills. As I've said, I find it insulting to suggest that poor people need better character (or that character is at the root of poverty). So I'll repeat that I believe that most of us benefit from character development and most of us benefit from tips and skills and tricks. I'd add that it's fair to suggest that the poor may be less disposed to happen upon the latter, and that helping the poor access these things isn't akin to blaming their poverty on them for not knowing any better; it's a way of tackling one way that systemic poverty blocks access to opportunities.